Shifts in Guidelines for Ethical Scientific Conduct
How Public and Private Organizations Create and Change Norms of Research Integrity1
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11923740 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kyle Montgomery (0000-0001-5235-1492, AGSM, UC Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA, corresponding author), Amalya L Oliver (0000-0003-1394-2753, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 137-155 |
| Publication date | 2009-01-26 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Studies of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-3127 • E-ISSN: 1460-3659 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306312708097659 |
| PMID | 19569428 |
| OpenAlex | W2002413724 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 26 |
We analyze the activities and actors involved in articulating and diffusing guidelines for ethical scientific conduct from 1975 to the present. We use a theoretical framework of institutional change at the organizational-field level to examine the co-evolution of the structure of the organizational field of 'scientific research' and its institutional logic. Public agencies have long provided funding to US universities to support faculty research, expecting that implicit norms of scientific conduct would guide behavior. Growing publicity about research fraud in the late 1960s and early 1970s triggered a shift from implicit norms to explicit behavioral proscriptions, with strong administrative oversight. As private sources of research funding exert new pressures on research behavior, public-private partnerships are emerging to articulate explicit, yet voluntary prescriptive norms of research integrity. The analysis demonstrates the co-evolution and co-dependence of changes in the identity and strength of influential actors in the field of scientific research and changes in the norms of scientific conduct. We examine how the normative guidelines have been constructed over time, illustrating the persistence of earlier norms as the foundation for current guidelines. We conclude with implications for future research conduct
Engineering ethics · Field (mathematics · Foundation (evidence · Institutional theory · Normative · Organizational Behavior · Organizational field · Political science · Public relations · Publicity · Social science · Sociology · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Ethics in Business and Education · Law · Management and Organizational Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology
Eugenics
The Ethos of Science and Its Correlates
Good Science from Below
Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses
What Roles for Scientific Associations in Contemporary Science
From scandal to reform
Whose ethics, whose accountability? A debate about university research ethics committees
Problematising the ethics of organ donation after circulatory death in the UK
Data sharing policies in scholarly publications
Dilemas éticos en el trabajo de campo
Academic integrity
Reassessing the Role of the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee
The Reversed Causalities of Doctoral Training on Research Integrity
The Shifting ‘Self’ of Science’s Self-Governing Capacity
Drawing a line
Under repair
Real Science
Theorizing Change
Institutional Evolution and Change
The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields
Framing Science
A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct
Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,07 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2025 (15) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |